Civil War rationale -- final?

[level_head]

(It has been a busy week!)

The Cause
The secession of Southern states, as they said, was about slavery. They talked about the rights of states with regard to slavery, and perhaps you can call this a "states rights" issue -- but I have large problems with it being called "states rights INSTEAD of slavery

Comments

[sir_dave]

Everything so far said (by all) convinces me as an outsider that the issue today is finding a way to nurse a grievance against being beaten, and to find a way to claim that the conflict was mistaken or unjust so as to validate the grievance.

Nothing I've seen validates any grievance I have seen stated. Every now and then in life the people with just cause win. That this leaves lingering grievances is just human. Sadly we don't get to have conflicts without people being angry about it afterwards, for good reasons or bad ones.

[john_j_enright]

Thanks for all the research!

[juliet_winters]

"The Southern States seceded based upon what they THOUGHT the federal government might do to them

[telnar]

That sounds convincing based on the popular vote totals, but looking state by state, Lincoln won only 11 electoral votes without a majority (7 in California and Oregon where he won by plurality and 4 in New Jersey which appears to have voted by district and also gave 3 electoral votes to Douglas). The other 169 electoral votes out of 303 cast that he received would still have been his if his opponents' votes were combined. That's still enough to win.

This is based on Dave Leip's Atlas of US Presidential Elections: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

[level_head]

Invasion is a very powerful incentive.

Yes -- but this wasn't invasion, it was anticipation of invasion. And Lincoln was specifically disclaiming that. They thought he would anyway -- and he did, of course, during the later War.

But at the time of the seven states' secession, there had been no invasion.

===|==============/ Level Head

[juliet_winters]

Fear and the hatred it engenders is sufficient if not just cause to begin a war.

[telnar]

I like your reasoning in the first two points, but I think that you go too far in the 2nd amendment discussion in implying that our military situation today is similar to the one which prevailed in 1860. Because of the small size of the standing federal army in 1860, Confederate armies were able to quickly seize federal arsenals within their borders and began the war with roughly equal quality cannons and other land equipment to the larger Union forces. In contrast, they never came close to parity in naval equipment, which is harder to seize

[deckardcanine]

Funny how you decry a preemptive strike when you support a war that began with one. But maybe that's a talk for another time. Right now, I'm rather pleased with what you have to say. What the South did was like filing for divorce because you suspect that your spouse will be abusive in the future.

[level_head]

Funny how you decry a preemptive strike when you support a war that began with one.

*chuckle*

It may just barely be possible that I don't see it the same way.

===|==============/ Level Head

[level_head]

But I should thank you for the compliment, and not chuckle at your expense.

Thanks!

===|==============/ Level Head